I am, frankly, of the view that there is uncertainty about the United States' will around the world.

It is essentially not a fighting force. It signals that we are completely out of the fight militarily, I would suggest.

The President has said he would like to negotiate with the Taliban, and that has been attempted for a number of years today.

I just hope that somehow we don't make the mistake that Senator McCain has so wisely warned us of, in Afghanistan, to rush out.

I do not see this, in any way, that we're starting a new war.

I believe our Congress, in a bipartisan way, is open to having a more robust assistance to the Afghan forces.

The President of the United States has made some very unwise decisions in this regard.

I think President Obama will listen, and I think we can have bipartisan support here for a more realistic approach to the drawdown in Afghanistan.

I think that is a dangerous signal to be sending.

It needs to end successfully.

I think to completely move out and radically reduce our presence incredibly risk the gains our men and women have fought so hard for.

We don't have enough money to run this government, and the deficits will continue to rise.

We do have a problem with defense spending. It is causing me great concern as a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Budget for a couple of years.

The Defense Department has to tell us what they are going to spend the money on and how much it is.

By 2019, interest on the debt will exceed the entire defense budget.

So, the question--so, under the laws of war, a person who's an unlawful--who is a prisoner of war can be detained until the conflict is over, on the general principles of war.

Well, you also don't consider there's a difference between civilian prosecution and military detention and military commission trials, either, in which case, as Senator Ayotte said, you're dead wrong.

there is absolutely no way that you can contend over a number of cases, as a matter of policy, it's better for the National security of the United States that people be promptly taken to civilian court to be tried in civilian court rather…

if we can prosecute them in Article 3 court, we will.

the person charged in civilian court has a right to demand a speedy trial, he has a right to demand discovery of the government's case.

That's what goes on in the real world.

Wasn't that a high-risk thing for American soldiers? And they were sent in to capture him alive so that he could be interrogated.

And, before they can be asked any questions, they are given their Miranda rights and told not to answer questions, correct?

The problem is that the commander in chief, the President of the United States, is insisting on blocking that bill.

I feel the tensions there very intensely. It's been said in--that the Defense Department--in and around the Defense Department, but each service is committed to maintaining personnel levels.